Opinion
16875-23
06-17-2024
LATASHA O. COLE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
In this case, petitioner seeks review with respect to notices of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability issued for her 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax years. Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Tax Years 2015 and 2016, filed March 14, 2024. As grounds for his motion, respondent asserts that, as to petitioner's 2015 and 2016 tax years, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed in section 6015(e). Respondent represents in his motion that petitioner does not object to the granting of his motion as to 2015, but does object to the granting of the motion as to 2016. However, although the Court provided petitioner an opportunity to file an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, the Court has received no response from petitioner.
The record reflects that, on February 8, 2023, respondent sent to petitioner by certified mail a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (notice of determination) for petitioner's 2015 tax year. The record further reflects that, on February 13, 2023, respondent sent to petitioner by certified mail a notice of determination for petitioner's 2016 tax year. The Petition, which was contained in an envelope bearing a postmark dated October 16, 2023, was received and filed by the Court on October 23, 2023.
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case such as this one, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer, and section 6015(e)(1) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the notice of determination (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). "The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional." Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1)(A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . ."). If a Petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the Petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(2).
The time for filing a petition with this Court as to the 2015 notice of determination expired on May 9, 2023, while the time for filing a petition as to the 2016 notice of determination expired on May 15, 2023. Because the Petition was not filed (or mailed) on or before those dates, we are obliged to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to tax years 2015 and 2016.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Tax Years 2015 and 2016 is granted, in that it is
ORDERED that so much of this case relating to tax years 2015 and 2016 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed in section 6015(e) and deemed stricken from the Court's record. Petitioner is advised that so much of this case relating to the notices of determination issued for her 2017 and 2018 tax years remains pending before the Court.